Welcome To The FECC Forum - More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Anything about ElvisMore than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:38 am

I thought Parker died from Bone Cancer.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:41 am

He also had a "secret" other child.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:27 am

elvis-fan wrote:Just on the final pages of Last Train to Memphis... and in those early years it was quite obvious that Tom Parker was instrumental in helping Elvis achieve his success... through his personal contacts in the entertainment industry, his control over how Elvis was exposed to the public and getting him on television and into movies. I couldn't really care less about what kind of a person he was because his relationship with Elvis was purely professional. As the years went on, its also quite apparent that Tom Parker did little more for his client than keep him making money... regardless of how unhappy his client may have been. But I would blame Elvis more than Parker for that...

You couldn't be more wrong. You should care about what kind of person Parker was, that's unless you aren't interested in the human side of Elvis or the people who surrounded him. Everything Parker did for Elvis was strictly personal gain even if it hurt Elvis in the long run. Parker achieved success all right, he ran Elvis into the ground along with the other leeches. Parker's relationship with Elvis wasn't professional, it was completely personal. Elvis was a cash cow and a circus pet and anyone with half a brain would know how that always ends up. Elvis put all of his trust into someone who saw dollar signs instead of reality. It's easy to put trust in someone who says they know what they're doing and handles everything with a sure fire confidence. He didn't have Elvis' best interests at heart because he was greedy and selfish.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:04 am

Its too late to care

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:29 am

I would not be so quick to dismiss Parker's managing of Eddy Arnold. During the years 1946-1956, Arnold was the biggest selling country artist on record and was enormously successful on radio and personal appearances. He even had his own TV show and made a few movies for Columbia.

Arnold was a BIG star.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:52 am

He was the best manager Elvis could have hoped for in 1955, he was a pioneer and way ahead of his time. He and his boy were perfect for each other. The old carny tricks couldn't and didn't last forever though, he became old hat and he ultimately destroyed any creativity Elvis had, he became greedy, even more so when it was apparent to him that his artist had all but given up. In the later years he took what he could get for as long as he could get it. He rode the gravy train...

Was he a bad manager? - No he one of the very best.Was he a bad person? - No. Yes he was a shrewd business man a sneeky greedy old carny who looked after is interests but it's harsh to say he was a bad person. On the contrary their is evidence of great generosity.

I firmly believe and will always believe that he ultimately loved Elvis, yes he was a con man but in the main Elvis didn't do badly from the deals Colonel pulled. Elvis is as much to blame as anyone not standing up to the mediocrity which in the end contributed to his early death.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:15 pm

Elvisfan10 wrote:

elvis-fan wrote:Just on the final pages of Last Train to Memphis... and in those early years it was quite obvious that Tom Parker was instrumental in helping Elvis achieve his success... through his personal contacts in the entertainment industry, his control over how Elvis was exposed to the public and getting him on television and into movies. I couldn't really care less about what kind of a person he was because his relationship with Elvis was purely professional. As the years went on, its also quite apparent that Tom Parker did little more for his client than keep him making money... regardless of how unhappy his client may have been. But I would blame Elvis more than Parker for that...

You couldn't be more wrong. You should care about what kind of person Parker was, that's unless you aren't interested in the human side of Elvis or the people who surrounded him. Everything Parker did for Elvis was strictly personal gain even if it hurt Elvis in the long run. Parker achieved success all right, he ran Elvis into the ground along with the other leeches. Parker's relationship with Elvis wasn't professional, it was completely personal. Elvis was a cash cow and a circus pet and anyone with half a brain would know how that always ends up. Elvis put all of his trust into someone who saw dollar signs instead of reality. It's easy to put trust in someone who says they know what they're doing and handles everything with a sure fire confidence. He didn't have Elvis' best interests at heart because he was greedy and selfish.

i tend to agree with this side of the argument.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:29 pm

Elvisfan10 wrote:

elvis-fan wrote:Just on the final pages of Last Train to Memphis... and in those early years it was quite obvious that Tom Parker was instrumental in helping Elvis achieve his success... through his personal contacts in the entertainment industry, his control over how Elvis was exposed to the public and getting him on television and into movies. I couldn't really care less about what kind of a person he was because his relationship with Elvis was purely professional. As the years went on, its also quite apparent that Tom Parker did little more for his client than keep him making money... regardless of how unhappy his client may have been. But I would blame Elvis more than Parker for that...

You couldn't be more wrong. You should care about what kind of person Parker was, that's unless you aren't interested in the human side of Elvis or the people who surrounded him. Everything Parker did for Elvis was strictly personal gain even if it hurt Elvis in the long run. Parker achieved success all right, he ran Elvis into the ground along with the other leeches. Parker's relationship with Elvis wasn't professional, it was completely personal. Elvis was a cash cow and a circus pet and anyone with half a brain would know how that always ends up. Elvis put all of his trust into someone who saw dollar signs instead of reality. It's easy to put trust in someone who says they know what they're doing and handles everything with a sure fire confidence. He didn't have Elvis' best interests at heart because he was greedy and selfish.

If you know anything about business, which it seems you don't, personal relationships matter very little as part of making business decisions. You're personal feelings and opinions about Tom Parker are obvious but are not relevant to my original post. Parker's job as a manager when Elvis first started out was to make... Elvis... money. He did that. Of course he was looking out for his own interests - and his clients at that time. And I never said anything about Parker being a saint. He was instrumental in Elvis' early success, so you my friend are wrong.

In the end, it was Elvis who allowed himself to be controlled because of his lack of knowledge about the business and his lack of desire to do anything associated with controlling his own destiny. If someone continued to put you in situations that made you unhappy, would you allow it to continue??? Elvis did put his trust in Parker to manage his professional career... but not his life. My comments were regarding Elvis' career when he first started out... you have misinterpreted my comments into Parker's relationship with Elvis over his entire career.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:47 pm

Subject: colonel parker bad manager/person

elvis-fan wrote: I couldn't really care less about what kind of a person he was because his relationship with Elvis was purely professional.

Too often unprofessional, but ultimately Elvis was responsible for himself and his own career.

Elvisfan10 wrote: You should care about what kind of person Parker was ...

keninlincs wrote:It's too late to care

True

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:23 pm

Nothing is black and white here. The Colonel was good and bad for Elvis. Was he a bad person? well The Colonel had quite a few people that liked him so he could not have been that horrible a person.

Elvis was responsible for his own health decline. The Colonel AND Elvis were responsible for any career declines. The Colonel did make managerial mistakes but he was not trying to intentionally hurt Elvis. In a lot of cases he really thought his decisions were in Elvis best interests. Hurting your client only hurts yourself.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:23 am

DEH wrote:Nothing is black and white here. The Colonel was good and bad for Elvis. Was he a bad person? well The Colonel had quite a few people that liked him so he could not have been that horrible a person.

Just because people liked Parker doesn't mean he was a good person. People liked Hitler did that make him a good person? People like the President does that make him a good person? People like Joe Blow down the street does that make him a good person? The answer to those questions is no.

DEH wrote:Elvis was responsible for his own health decline. The Colonel AND Elvis were responsible for any career declines. The Colonel did make managerial mistakes but he was not trying to intentionally hurt Elvis. In a lot of cases he really thought his decisions were in Elvis best interests. Hurting your client only hurts yourself.

We're all responsible for our health, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't intervene and nobody really did. Parker was his manager and he should've done something to help his client, but he kept him drugged and naive. He was intentionally trying to hurt Elvis. There are no accidents, only people trying to find excuses for making poor choices and that's exactly what he did. He made many poor choices. He was looking out for his own interests, anything to make a quick buck.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:25 am

Julian Grant wrote:Was he a bad manager? - No he one of the very best.Was he a bad person? - No. Yes he was a shrewd business man a sneeky greedy old carny who looked after is interests but it's harsh to say he was a bad person. On the contrary their is evidence of great generosity.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad manager? Yes he was. After 1960 he lacked any long term policy. Anything was aimed on making a quick buck here and now. The only thing of genius was the 1973 Aloha Special.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad person?

It is a fact that after Elvis' death an official investigation found that "both Colonel Parker (and RCA) acted in collusion against Presley's best interests. Colonel Parker was guilty of self-dealing and overreaching and had violated his duty to both Elvis and to the estate." Source: ElvisInfoNet

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:56 am

Alexander wrote:

Julian Grant wrote:Was he a bad manager? - No he one of the very best.Was he a bad person? - No. Yes he was a shrewd business man a sneeky greedy old carny who looked after is interests but it's harsh to say he was a bad person. On the contrary their is evidence of great generosity.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad manager? Yes he was. The only thing of genius was the 1973 Aloha Special.

Ok, Let's just conveniently look over the fact of...

- Getting Elvis signed to a major label from Sun. - Getting Elvis on national Television and exploiting it to the full.- Getting Elvis his first Paramount picture deal.- The orchestration of Elvis' career while he was serving in the Army. - On-going negotiations with the record company and movie studios which in many cases broke records.- Negotiations with the International, getting them to book someone who hadn't performed 'live' for 8 years.

Not to mention such things as publishing houses and merchandising.

And, oh, "Aloha" - since you mention it.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad person?

It is a fact that after Elvis' death an official investigation found that "both Colonel Parker (and RCA) acted in collusion against Presley's best interests. Colonel Parker was guilty of self-dealing and overreaching and had violated his duty to both Elvis and to the estate." Source: ElvisInfoNet

This makes one a "bad person"? - maybe in your book but as I stated previously, their is no denying he rode the gravy train - All with Elvis' own approval though it would seem.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:55 am

Julian Grant wrote:

Alexander wrote:

Julian Grant wrote:Was he a bad manager? - No he one of the very best.Was he a bad person? - No. Yes he was a shrewd business man a sneeky greedy old carny who looked after is interests but it's harsh to say he was a bad person. On the contrary their is evidence of great generosity.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad manager? Yes he was. The only thing of genius was the 1973 Aloha Special.

Ok, Let's just conveniently look over the fact of...

- Getting Elvis signed to a major label from Sun. - Getting Elvis on national Television and exploiting it to the full.- Getting Elvis his first Paramount picture deal.- The orchestration of Elvis' career while he was serving in the Army. - On-going negotiations with the record company and movie studios which in many cases broke records.- Negotiations with the International, getting them to book someone who hadn't performed 'live' for 8 years.

Not to mention such things as publishing houses and merchandising.

And, oh, "Aloha" - since you mention it.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad person?

It is a fact that after Elvis' death an official investigation found that "both Colonel Parker (and RCA) acted in collusion against Presley's best interests. Colonel Parker was guilty of self-dealing and overreaching and had violated his duty to both Elvis and to the estate." Source: ElvisInfoNet

This makes one a "bad person"? - maybe in your book but as I stated previously, their is no denying he rode the gravy train - All with Elvis' own approval though it would seem.

I think we do agree on most things, Julian. I never disputed any of the things you mentoined. But all of them are prior to 1961. The movie deals afterwards were certainly profitable but profit alone is a very short sighted pilar to built a career on. They milked they formula until no-one would take Elvis serious anymore and the last movies (from 1967 on) were obligations that were long before contracted... Elvis had outmarketed himself completely by 1968 within the formula. He had become a running gag and by 1968 Elvis career was on a serious death end.Signing Elvis to the International any manager could do after the glorious NBC 1968 Comeback Special. One can even question if the exhausting Vegas season were the best next step in the phase of Elvis career in 1969 or even in the 70s. A world tour at any point in the career would have been most challenging for Elvis, would have made him even more iconic all over the world, would have boost record sales and be far more profitable than any vegas season could be? We all know why the man ended up touring Baton Rouge, Kalamazoo and Madison (with all due respect) and never performed in Rio de Janeiro, London, Tokyo or who knows were.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:45 pm

Julian Grant wrote:

Alexander wrote:

Julian Grant wrote:Was he a bad manager? - No he one of the very best.Was he a bad person? - No. Yes he was a shrewd business man a sneeky greedy old carny who looked after is interests but it's harsh to say he was a bad person. On the contrary their is evidence of great generosity.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad manager? Yes he was. The only thing of genius was the 1973 Aloha Special.

Ok, Let's just conveniently look over the fact of...

- Getting Elvis signed to a major label from Sun. - Getting Elvis on national Television and exploiting it to the full.- Getting Elvis his first Paramount picture deal.- The orchestration of Elvis' career while he was serving in the Army. - On-going negotiations with the record company and movie studios which in many cases broke records.- Negotiations with the International, getting them to book someone who hadn't performed 'live' for 8 years.

Not to mention such things as publishing houses and merchandising.

And, oh, "Aloha" - since you mention it.

Was Colonel Tom Parker a bad person?

It is a fact that after Elvis' death an official investigation found that "both Colonel Parker (and RCA) acted in collusion against Presley's best interests. Colonel Parker was guilty of self-dealing and overreaching and had violated his duty to both Elvis and to the estate." Source: ElvisInfoNet

This makes one a "bad person"? - maybe in your book but as I stated previously, their is no denying he rode the gravy train - All with Elvis' own approval though it would seem.

Julian, my thought and seemingly that of several others is that the Colonel was good for Elvis in the early years but after the early 60s there were a lot more negatives than positives to his management

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:56 pm

rickeap wrote:Julian, my thought and seemingly that of several others is that the Colonel was good for Elvis in the early years but after the early 60s there were a lot more negatives than positives to his management

Absolutely and I agree that's the general feeling but the question was, was Colonel a bad manager? He wasn't, his success speaks for itself. I like almost everyone else though believe that it would have been in Elvis' best interests to have replaced him later in his career but Elvis choose to be loyal to the 'old man' right to the end, anything other than that for him to contemplate was just two much hassle and he in turn found ways to escape the reality.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:08 pm

Parker seems like a classic psychopath, and its certainly worth considering in relation to the claimed Dutch murder he is supposed to have committed (but this is not meant to mean all psychopaths are killers).I work with one: enormously successful, can't for the life of him relate to other people, can't socialise, can mix. But totally pre-occupied with playing Chess with people's lives and thoughts. A real cnut, if you will. He uses detriment to his advantage. He run's things in to the ground, just to save it "just in time". A bit like Parker.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:48 pm

Elvisfan10 wrote:... but he kept him drugged and naive. He was intentionally trying to hurt Elvis.

OK, now you're just being silly...

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:59 pm

Alanna Nash's "The Colonel" book is essential reading if you need to decide about Colonel's manipulative ways.

The book on the whole was really good, if a little flawed. I learnt far more about Parker's dodgy past that I knew before. Nash's inferences about Parker's youthful culpability in a Dutch murder as the underlying reason for his never going overseas after reaching the U.S. should never have been included in the book without more credible evidence.

I strongly suspect his past mistakes (army psychological issues and suchlike) meant Colonel never wanted to apply for a passport or have anyone investigate his past in detail.

Overall the detailed investigations in the book were disturbing, and many of the Nash's stories about Parker hardly engender new respect for the gambling manager who kept flogging Elvis to death,

CheersPiers

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:47 pm

Bodie wrote:

Juan Luis wrote:I think the best thing Parker did with Elvis (for whatever reason) was keeping them (us fans) wanting more. No talk shows and being seen on tv alot etc.. When I saw Elvis in 1977,I remember he was in and out too fast. And his part of the show lasted an hour or so. One of the longest of his late 70's concerts. I remember thinking I will see him again. Not to be.

I disagree with that.

Im sure Elvis would have loved to have done a TV show like Tom Jones did from 1969-71.

Elvis could have done duets with some of the biggest stars of Rock n Roll, country, blues,gospel etc and it would have been sensational.

I agree with Juan, the one thing I think Parker did good was to keep Elvis exclusive. Had Elvis continued to do TV guest spots after the 50's and did yearly TV specials like other artists did, he would have been devalued and in the publics mind, been just another singer like Glen Campbell or Tom Jones. Parker did know the value of not being over exposed and the adage of; "Always leave them wanting more." Elvis's music was never part of any 50's Rock compilations and he was never sold as a nostalgia act which also kept him exclusive. He was always above al the other 50's artists and Parker did good in making sure Elvis was a "current act." But I agree with all of the other criticisms of Parker as a bad, unethical manager.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:12 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:He also had a "secret" other child.

The child's name is Chaz Bono.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:13 pm

eligain wrote:

Bodie wrote:

Juan Luis wrote:I think the best thing Parker did with Elvis (for whatever reason) was keeping them (us fans) wanting more. No talk shows and being seen on tv alot etc.. When I saw Elvis in 1977,I remember he was in and out too fast. And his part of the show lasted an hour or so. One of the longest of his late 70's concerts. I remember thinking I will see him again. Not to be.

I disagree with that.

Im sure Elvis would have loved to have done a TV show like Tom Jones did from 1969-71.

Elvis could have done duets with some of the biggest stars of Rock n Roll, country, blues,gospel etc and it would have been sensational.

I agree with Juan, the one thing I think Parker did good was to keep Elvis exclusive. Had Elvis continued to do TV guest spots after the 50's and did yearly TV specials like other artists did, he would have been devalued and in the publics mind, been just another singer like Glen Campbell or Tom Jones. Parker did know the value of not being over exposed and the adage of; "Always leave them wanting more." Elvis's music was never part of any 50's Rock compilations and he was never sold as a nostalgia act which also kept him exclusive. He was always above al the other 50's artists and Parker did good in making sure Elvis was a "current act." But I agree with all of the other criticisms of Parker as a bad, unethical manager.

There's a fine line between being "exclusive" and "confined," and Elvis falls more often in the category of the latter, IMO . . . Keen exposure and a variety of projects that afforded him an alternative to the concert stage would not have "devalued" Elvis in the slightest. In fact, such may have afforded him a few bigger hits throughout the decade, not to mentioned spurred his interests in new projects through actually working with real, talented people from whom he could learn -- and vice versa.

To be of a mind that Elvis was "above all the other '50s artists" is an elitist and narrow-minded attitude that wholly ignores the fact that he spiralled into an early grave after years of his career being in neutral -- nor was he considered as being a "contemporary" act during most of the 1970s. Yet, the likes of Cash, Diamond and Jones endured long after Elvis - and through any career downturns - to reap commercial rewards and critical plaudits that eluded a talent in Elvis that was wholly capable, but mismanaged and lost in a quagmire of tours, when lesser artists were afforded more options and better outlets.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:34 pm

"In the end, it was Elvis who allowed himself to be controlled because of his lack of knowledge about the business and his lack of desire to do anything associated with controlling his own destiny. If someone continued to put you in situations that made you unhappy, would you allow it to continue???"

I have to disagree with this line of reasoning Elvis Fan. Why have Parker or anyone there if you can do it yourself? The reason you hire someone is to do the things where you don't have the expertise. Business is not supposed to be the job of the artist. Parker, presumably, sold himself to Elvis on the idea that he had the expertise in these areas. And in terms of orchestrating the early moves, he did. However, after Elvis became a certified super star he was in his over his head. I mean your final question is essentially accurate but if you put your trust in someone I don't think it's asking too much to have them fulfill that trust. I mean I'm sure Parker had some sort of line for not doing this or not doing that, but really would have it been too tough if Elvis wants a role in a big time movie to get him one? If Elvis wants to tour overseas, set up some dates? I don't see why a lot of fans feel it's necessary that Elvis have demanded that. Yeah, when it became clear these things weren't going to happen, Elvis should have made a move. However, it doesn't mean Parker did a good job.

Julian- While I agree with some of your points about Parker's early management you give him too much credit on some of the issues. By the 1970s, Elvis' recording contract was actually very poor for an artist of his standards. Getting the International to take a flier on Elvis in 1969 is not something for which he deserves credit. The fact that Elvis had not performed live in eight years actually made him a somewhat more interesting commodity because he had novelty and at the time of the deal Elvis was coming off a successful television special (which Parker was pushed into and the quality of which he fought all the way) and had a successful record on the charts. It wasn't any kind of bold gamble other than that it was a rock artist in an arena that had not been friendly to that type of act before. Being that this was a new type of hotel and under construction at the time it was a gamble for Elvis and Parker more than it was the hotel.

Greystoke- There was a certain value in keeping Elvis rare. One of the reasons that people traveled from halfway across the world to see Elvis live in the late 1960s and early 1970s was because he wasn't on every other talk show that you saw like say Bobby Darin was. Springsteen handled his career in much the same way up until the 1990s to the point that when he did make a rare TV appearance it was seen as a full fledged media event. I remember David Letterman did his final NBC broadcast, one of the things that solidified as a major event in the public's mind was that Bruce Springsteen was on it. And this was entirely because he very seldom appeared on television. His SNL appearance a year or so before was a similar big deal for the same reason.

That was I think of one of Parker's better strategies. Elvis was not one of many. To see him, before his movies started popping up on television, you had to go out of your way to the theater or a to a live show. You also had to shell out specifically to see him as oppose to seeing him in a package show with several other performers which was the way Berry, Richard, all the doo wop acts were usually appearing with great success in the early 1970s. To own his songs you couldn't buy the American Graffiti LP or the latest K-Tel comp on TV, you had to make a special purchase. Capitol used, and in many continues to use today, the same strategy with the Beatles' songs.

And it's certainly not much of a disservice to anyone's artistic legacy, to say that in the popular imagination, Elvis towered over all his '50s contemporaries just as the Beatles towered over the 1960s. Whether they were greater artists than their contemporaries is another argument or whether they were more musically influential, but it was they and the public's reaction to them that defined the decades in which they emerged. When people look back they often the decade as much or more than the political leaders. Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, etc were great, innovative artists, and extremely popular ones in the 1950s. They didn't spend half the year in consecutive years at the top of the pop singles chart as well as much of the time on the lesser charts and the LP charts. They weren't the number four box office attraction in 1957 based just on two movies. They weren't the one that beat the unbeatable Ed Sullivan in the ratings and then set a record on Sullivan's shows. They weren't the one that was the subject of editorials from coast to coast.

Also, to argue that Elvis wasn't a contemporary star in the 1970s despite his own ennui and Parker's mismanagement is to rewrite history. He may not have been a A1 youth phenom anymore but in terms of being a celebrity he was still at the top of the ladder even before his premature death. Whitburn ranked him #11 among the decade's singles artists. He had relatively few super hits but there were some. He set attendance record after attendance record. He charted more LPs in the decade than any artist in any decade. His records are still selling with an occasional smash. His live show is still the one of the tops in the business. This was in spite of Parker's management IMO and Elvis' own erratic interests but it was there.

A week prior to Elvis' famous concerts at Madison Square Garden, Dion and the Belmonts had a well publicized and very successful reunion at the same venue. Dion and the Belmonts though played as the center piece of a larger package show of oldies attractions. Their entire repertoire was made up of vintage oldies. There was an LP of their reunion as well. It made the bottom of the Billboard charts. By comparison, Elvis was a lone attraction. Only about half the songs he sang had been hits for him, two of them were less than three years old as were a full quarter of the songs included in the show. Although, the dress Dion and the Belmonts wore was contemporary, the dress Elvis wore was cutting edge contemporary, the kind of thing- for good or bad- that no one else but him was wearing at that moment. The album went Gold within weeks and eventually made Top Ten in Cashbox and #11 in Billboard. That's the difference between an act who's appeal is solely based on past glories and a contemporary artist.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:07 am

likethebike wrote:"In the end, it was Elvis who allowed himself to be controlled because of his lack of knowledge about the business and his lack of desire to do anything associated with controlling his own destiny. If someone continued to put you in situations that made you unhappy, would you allow it to continue???"

I have to disagree with this line of reasoning Elvis Fan. Why have Parker or anyone there if you can do it yourself? The reason you hire someone is to do the things where you don't have the expertise. Business is not supposed to be the job of the artist. Parker, presumably, sold himself to Elvis on the idea that he had the expertise in these areas. And in terms of orchestrating the early moves, he did. However, after Elvis became a certified super star he was in his over his head. I mean your final question is essentially accurate but if you put your trust in someone I don't think it's asking too much to have them fulfill that trust. I mean I'm sure Parker had some sort of line for not doing this or not doing that, but really would have it been too tough if Elvis wants a role in a big time movie to get him one? If Elvis wants to tour overseas, set up some dates? I don't see why a lot of fans feel it's necessary that Elvis have demanded that. Yeah, when it became clear these things weren't going to happen, Elvis should have made a move. However, it doesn't mean Parker did a good job.

No problem with you disagreeing but because he hired Parker to manage his career, does not mean he had to absolve himself from staying close to how his career was managed. And to be clear, I didn't say anything about Parker doing a "good job"... I was just stating some facts about the early years of Elvis' career based on information I read in Last Train to Memphis.

I learned something from hiring a lawyer years ago... just because they are supposed to be experts in the workings of the justice system, does not mean you can't contribute or give direction to them... it was in my best interest to understand and even learn something about the process... which I did and that helped me immensely in determining the outcome of the process and my future.

To me, Elvis' situation was something similar... and I understand that early on, Elvis knew very little about what he was getting himself into - after all he was only a kid. But he chose to give Parker complete control over the direction of his career. I can count on one hand the number of times during Elvis' career that he actually took matters into his own hands in determining "the best move for Elvis"... and they were some of the best decisions of his career... can you imagine how much more significant his musical career could have been had he done that more often. Elvis could have learned more about how management in the entertainment business was supposed to work... I can only assume he didn't feel the need to do that. The movie proposal in '74 is a great example of Parker steamrolling Elvis out of that role... but again I don't blame Parker... I blame Elvis for allowing it to happen. Trust is fine but I've learned over the years it has little place in business... at the end of the day people (in business) are out for themselves for the most part... I know that sounds cynical but it's been my experience.

Re: colonel parker bad manger /person

Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:55 am

likethebike wrote:...... the dress Elvis wore was cutting edge contemporary, the kind of thing - for good or bad - that no one else but him was wearing at that moment.